Home > D.C. > Research > Congress > CRW > Page

1A) Deadly Nuclear Waste Should Not Be Shipped Through America
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, in the near future, the House will vote on House Joint Resolution 87 to determine if we are going to ship deadly, high-level nuclear waste through America's cities and towns, through our neighborhoods, and past our schools, hospitals and houses of worship. If you vote for this resolution, that is what you will be doing, sending over 100,000 massive shipments of highly radioactive waste through the communities you represent, shipments that would be rolling on our roads and our rails every day for the next 30 years.

A single accident would threaten the health of thousands, cost billions to clean up, and forever ruin property values. If you do not think this can happen and will, think again. Just follow the headlines of transportation disasters we see almost weekly. Someday, instead of gasoline or chemicals, the disasters will involve nuclear waste. Could you look at your constituents and their children and look them in the eye and tell them you voted for a resolution that allowed a massive catastrophe to ruin their lives?

Vote ``no'' on House Joint Resolution 87 for the sake of your families, the sake of your constituents.

1B) U.S./Russian Plutonium Disposition Agreement
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to bring the Senate's attention to a matter of tremendous international importance to our efforts to prevent the terrorists' use of weapons of mass destruction.

   I wish to talk about the United States/Russian plutonium disposition agreement, a commitment between our two countries to each permanently dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium from nuclear weapons. Thirty-four tons is enough material to make over 4,000 nuclear weapons.

   I was pleased to help develop aspects of that agreement during several interactions with the Russian leadership of Minatom, both here and in Russia. I was in Moscow with our President in 1998 when the first agreement was initialed. I believe this agreement represents one the most significant accomplishments between the United States and Russia in the last 10 years in our joint efforts to keep the material and technology of weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of those that seek to do us harm.

   The agreement basically commits the United States and Russia to turning 34 tons of plutonium into fuel that can be burned in commercial nuclear power plants. In this way, electricity is produced and the used fuel is left in a condition that makes it unusable in the future for nuclear bombs. Facilities will be built in both the United States and Russia to perform this work.

   Our Government completed a 4-year process to decide what type of facilities was needed for this disposition mission, and where those facilities should be built. The United States considered four sites, Washington State, Idaho, Texas, and South Carolina, and after a vigorous competition in which the State of South Carolina lobbied very hard to get the mission, the decision was made to site the disposition facilities in South Carolina.

   Now, South Carolina is hesitating. The plutonium disposition agreement is being imperiled by the unwillingness of the State of South Carolina to reach an agreement with the Department of Energy on taking shipment of the plutonium identified for disposition and building the required facilities.

   It is appropriate for the Governor of South Carolina to insist on every assurance that his State will be treated fairly, and will not simply become the permanent storage site for unwanted nuclear material if for some reason the plutonium agreement should fall apart.

   But the Governor has done that, he has succeeded, he has won. He should be congratulated.

   The Governor has gotten the Secretary of Energy to provide South Carolina all of the assurances they never got from the Clinton administration, including full funding for the MOX program, a strict construction schedule, and a number of mechanisms, including statutory language and other measures, to ensure that the agreement will be legally enforceable.

   However, the Governor is apparently insisting that this matter should be thrown to the courts and resolved through the mechanism of a court ordered consent decree. Putting the courts in charge of executive branch non-proliferation and foreign policy affairs will slow our ability to meet our goals of reducing Russian nuclear material stockpiles, and will allow others who are opposed to the program's goals have a voice in their implementation. Ultimately, I fear America's national security will be undermined.

   Further delay in reaching agreement with South Carolina will undermine the United States/Russian plutonium disposition agreement. We must move forward with the construction of the MOX plant that will be used to dispose of the plutonium at issue in order to honor our commitments to the Russian Federation. That will be very difficult, if not impossible, in the face of litigation from the Governor of the State where the plant will be located.

   The Russians will not go along to reduce their plutonium inventory unless we do. A failure in this program means more material may end up on the black market where terrorists could have access to it.

   For 50 years now the State of South Carolina, like my home State of New Mexico, has hosted some of the most important facilities within our nuclear weapons complex. For 50 years, tens of thousands of the sons and daughters of South Carolina proudly toiled in relative anonymity so that the rest of the country, and the world, could enjoy the peace provided by our nuclear shield during the long, dark days of the Cold War. I am proud of the citizens of South Carolina and their unique service for our county.

   Today, the children and grandchildren of the previous generations of South Carolina heroes have a tremendous opportunity to almost literally, as the prophet Isaiah said, ``beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.'' They stand on the cusp of a grand new opportunity to lead the world community in converting nuclear weapons to electric power while at the same time keeping the material out of the hands of would be terrorists.

   We must go forward with this important agreement.

2A) Presidential Withdrawal from ABM Treaty

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Secretary Powell at this very moment in the Middle East is striving mightily to effect a cease fire and develop more support for our war on terror, especially to the extent we may have to take military action against the country of Iraq.

   It is in that context that I discuss today another way the administration has prepared to deal specifically with the threat from Iraq and other countries similarly situated in the Middle East.

   On December 13, following a period of high-level negotiations, President Bush notified Russia of his intent to withdraw the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Since then, I have addressed the Senate on the military justification for the President's decision and the question of how much a national ballistic missile defense system will cost. Today, I would like to discuss the President's constitutional authority to unilaterally exercise the right of withdrawal without the consent of the Senate or Congress as a whole.

   The President withdrew the United States from the treaty pursuant to Article XV, which allows either party to withdraw upon 6 months' notice if it determines that ``extraordinary events ..... have jeopardized its supreme interests.'' I believe his action is a proper exercise of the authority of the chief executive to terminate a formal treaty to which the Senate had given its consent pursuant to Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution.

   The question of Presidential authority is illustrated by the following assertion in a New York Times editorial by Bruce Ackerman, a professor of constitutional law at Yale:

   Presidents don't have the power to enter into treaties unilaterally ..... and once a treaty enters into force, the Constitution makes it part of the ``supreme law of the land'' just like a statute. Presidents can't terminate statutes they don't like. They must persuade both houses of Congress to join in a repeal.

   While the Constitution is silent with respect to treaty withdrawal, the preponderance of writings and opinions on this subject strongly suggests that the Framers intended for the authority to be vested in the President. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution declares that the ``executive power shall be vested in the President.'' And Article II, Section 2 makes clear that the President ``shall be Commander-in-Chief,'' that he shall appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and receive ambassadors, and that he ``shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties.''

   The Constitution approaches differently the duties of Congress, giving the legislative branch--in Article I's Vesting Clause--only the powers ``herein granted.'' The difference in language indicates that Congress' legislative powers are limited to the list enumerated in Article I, Section 8, while the President's powers include inherent executive authorities that are unenumerated in the Constitution. Thus, any ambiguities in the allocation of a power that is executive in nature--particularly in foreign affairs--should be resolved in favor of the executive branch. As James Madison once wrote in a letter to a friend, ``the Executive power being in general terms vested in the President, all power of an Executive nature not particularly taken away must belong to that department......''

   The treaty clause's location in Article II clearly implies that treaty power is an executive one. The Senate's role in making treaties is merely a check on the President's otherwise plenary power--hence the absence of any mention of treaty-making power in Article I, Section 8. Treaty withdrawal remains an unenumerated power--one that must logically fall within the President's general executive power.

   A careful reading of the writings of the Framers strongly also confirms that they viewed treaties differently than domestic law, and that, while they desired to put more authority over domestic affairs in the hands of the elected legislative representatives, they believed that the conduct of foreign affairs lay primarily with the President. As Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson observed during the first Washington Administration, ``The constitution has divided the powers of government into three branches [and] has declared that `the executive powers shall be vested in the president,' submitting only special articles of it to a negative by the Senate.'' Due to this structure, Jefferson continued, ``The transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether; it belongs,

   then, to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly.''

   In the same vein is the history of Supreme Court rulings on the subject of presidential powers. The Court has concluded that the President has the leading constitutional role in managing the nation's foreign relations. As one commentator, David Scheffer, noted in the Harvard International Law Journal, ``Constitutional history confirms time and again that in testing [the limits of presidential plenary powers], the courts have deferred to the President's foreign relations powers when the constitution fails to enumerate specific powers to Congress.''

   In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court observed that responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs and for protecting the national security are `` `central' Presidential domains.'' Similarly, in the Department of Navy v. Egan, the Supreme Court `` `recognized the generally accepted view that foreign policy [is] the province and responsibility of the Executive.' ''

   The case most frequently cited as confirming that the President is the supreme authority in the Nation's conduct of foreign affairs is the Supreme Court's 1936 decision in the United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. In that case, the Court reversed the decision of the district court, and affirmed the constitutionality of President Franklin Roosevelt's declaration of an arms embargo against both sides in the conflict between Peru and Bolivia over the Chaco region. As stated in the opinion issued by Justice Sutherland, the power to conduct foreign affairs is ``the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations--a power which does not require for its exercise an act of Congress.''

   Treaties represent a central tool for the successful conduct of foreign policy. Such international agreements typically reflect the circumstances of particular security or economic conditions which may, of course, change over time. As such, in the course of protecting national security, recognizing foreign governments, or pursuing diplomatic objectives, a President may determine that it is necessary to terminate specific United States' treaty obligations.

   That is precisely the subject we are facing with respect to the President's withdrawal from the 1972 ABM treaty.

   As the D.C. Circuit stated in Goldwater v. Carter, ``The determination of the conduct of the United States in regard to treaties is an instance of what has broadly been called `the foreign affairs power' of the President. ..... That status is not confined to the service of the President as a channel of communication ..... but embraces an active policy determination as to the conduct of the United States in regard to a treaty in response to numerous problems and circumstances as they arise.''

   For these reasons, other unenumerated treaty powers have been understood to rest within the plenary presidential authority. For example, the President alone decides whether to negotiate an international agreement, and also controls the subject, course, and scope of negotiations. Additionally, the President has the sole discretion whether to sign a treaty and whether to submit a treaty to the Senate for advice and consent. The President may even choose not to ratify a treaty after the Senate has approved it. Vesting the power to terminate a treaty in the President is consistent with the accepted view that other such unenumerated powers are the responsibility of the President.

   Furthermore, the executive branch has long maintained that it has the power to terminate treaties unilaterally. The Justice Department has argued that, ``Just as the Senate or Congress cannot bind the United States to a treaty without the President's active participation and approval, they cannot continue a treaty commitment that the President has determined is contrary to the security or diplomatic interests of the United States and is terminable under international law.'' The State Department, in a 1978 memorandum advising that the President had the authority under the Constitution to terminate the Mutual Defense Treaty without Congressional or Senate action, opined that, ``The President's constitutional power to give notice of termination provided for by the terms of a treaty derives from the President's authority and responsibility as chief executive to conduct the nation's foreign affairs and execute the laws.''

   One of the most well-known instances of treaty termination in recent history is former President Carter's decision to withdraw the United States from the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1954 between the U.S. and Taiwan in order to normalize relations with the People's Republic of China. That decision resulted in an extensive debate in the Senate and among scholars as to the President's constitutional authority to withdraw the United States from a treaty without the approval of the Senate or Congress. Several members of Congress, including former Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, filed suit against President Carter, and the full Senate addressed treaty termination in a series of legislation that was debated by a number of my distinguished colleagues who remain in this body today.

   Senator Kennedy wrote a persuasive article for Policy Review in 1979 strongly supporting the notion that treaty termination is an executive power not requiring legislative consent. In that article, he argued:

   Article 10 of the treaty in question [the Mutual Defense Treaty] provided for its termination. In giving notice of an intent to terminate the treaty pursuant to that provision, the President was not violating the treaty but acting according to its terms--terms that were approved by the Senate when it consented to the treaty.

   As Charles C. Hyde, former Legal Advisor to the Department of State, put it in his leading treatise: ``The President is not believed ..... to lack authority to denounce, in pursuance of its terms, a treaty to which the United States is a party, without legislative approval. In taking such action, he is merely exercising in behalf of the nation a privilege already conferred upon it by the agreement''......

   At the time that each treaty is made and submitted [for the advice and consent of the Senate, Senators] should seek to condition Senate approval upon acceptance of the Senate's participation in its termination. The Senate might have done so when it consented to the 1954 defense treaty with the Republic of China, but it did not. Any attempt, at this point, to invalidate the President's notice of intention to terminate that treaty is not only unwise ..... but also without legal foundation.

   As with the 1954 treaty, the ABM Treaty contains a withdrawal clause--article XV(2)--for extraordinary events. That clause states:

   Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the Treaty.

   That, of course, is precisely what President Bush did.

   The President was fully justified in using that withdrawal clause unilaterally. Just as the Senate did not condition its approval of the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan upon its participation in termination of that treaty, the Senate also did not place such a condition upon its approval of the ABM Treaty.

   Senator Goldwater's suit over the President's termination of the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan led to conflicting decisions by the trial and appellate courts and an eventual non-decision by the Supreme Court. The D.C. Circuit had reversed the trial court's decision, and upheld President Carter's authority to terminate the Mutual Defense Treaty, rejecting the arguments that (1) the advice and consent role of the Senate in making treaties implies a similar role in termination, and (2) that, because a treaty is part of the law of the land, a minimum of a statute is required to terminate it.

   The Circuit Court pointed out that the President is responsible for determining whether a treaty has been breached by another party, whether a treaty is no longer viable because of changed circumstances, and even whether to ratify a treaty after the Senate has given its advice and consent. The court said that, ``In contrast to the lawmaking power, the constitutional initiative in the treaty-making field is in the President, not Congress.'' Moreover, the court stated that, to require Senate or Congressional consent to terminate a treaty would lock the United States into ``all of its international obligations, even if the President and two-thirds of the Senate minus one firmly believed that the proper course for the United States was to terminate a treaty.'' It would, therefore, deny the President the authority and flexibility ``necessary to conduct our foreign policy in a rational and effective manner.''

   Finally, the court determined that ``of central significance'' was that the Mutual Defense Treaty--as my colleague Senator Kennedy had also pointed out in his article--contains a termination clause that ``is without conditions,'' and spells out no role for either the Senate or Congress. As a consequence, the court concluded, the power to act under that clause ``devolves upon the President.'' The facts are the same with the 1972 ABM Treaty, and, therefore, the law must also be consistent.

   I should note that President Carter did not stand alone in exercising his power to unilaterally terminate a treaty. According to David Gray Adler's The Constitution and the Termination of Treaties, unilateral executive termination has been practiced since the Lincoln Administration, and seems to be the most commonly used method of terminating treaties. And as the D.C. Circuit stated in Goldwater v. Carter,

   It is not without significance that out of all of the historical precedents brought to our attention, in no situation has a treaty been continued over the opposition of the President.

   It is interesting to me members of the Senate have also raised the issue of the President's authority to withdraw from a particular treaty without legislative consent in the context of debating the resolution of ratification of a treaty. During the Senate's consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, proponents of the CTBT argued that Safeguard F of that treaty meant that the President alone could exercise the right of withdrawal from the treaty. Safeguard F states:

   If the President of the United States is informed by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy--advised by the Nuclear Weapons Council, the Directors of DOE's nuclear weapons laboratories and the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command-- that a high level of confidence in the safety or reliability of a nuclear weapon type which the two Secretaries consider to be critical to our nuclear deterrent could no longer be certified, the President, in consultation with Congress, would be prepared to withdraw from the CTBT under the standard ``supreme national interests'' clause in order to conduct whatever testing might be required.

   As Senator Biden stated on the Senate floor on October 12, 1999:

   They have to assume, then, that the President, knowing that this stockpile is no longer reliable, would look at the U.S. Congress and say: I, President whomever, next President, certify that we can rely on our stockpile. They either have to assume that or they have to assume their concern about our stockpile is not a problem because the moment the President is told that, he has to call us and tell us and withdraw from the treaty .....

   Senator Boxer likewise argued that withdrawal from the treaty would be exclusively the responsibility of the President during her remarks on the Senate floor on October 13, 1999, stating,

   If our stockpile is not safe and reliable, the President will withdraw from the treaty. There doesn't have to be a Senate vote. It's not going to get bogged down in the rules of the Senate. If there is a supreme national interest in withdrawing from the treaty, we will withdraw.

   Indeed, even some Senators openly opposed to the President's decision to withdraw the United States from the ABM Treaty have recognized his constitutional authority to make the decision without the consent of the Senate or Congress. In December 2001, Inside Missile Defense quoted Senator Daschle on the subject:

   It's my understanding that the President has the unilateral authority to make this decision. But we are researching just what specific legal options the Congress has, and we'll have to say more about that later ..... at this point, we're very limited in what options we have legislatively.

   Similarly, according to a July 2001 article in the New York Times, Senator Levin stated,

   The president alone has the right to withdraw from a treaty, but Congress has the heavy responsibility of determining whether or not to appropriate the funds for activities that conflict with a treaty.

   My own view is that while it would be anomalous for Congress to withhold funding for a national missile defense system, Senator Levin is correct on both counts: withdrawal is the President's decision and any funding for anything must be through Congressional appropriation.

   In conclusion, I believe history will judge President Bush's notice of withdrawal from the 1972 ABM Treaty as equal in importance to his historic decision to commit the United States to the war on terrorism. With the withdrawal decision, he has paved the way for the United States to work aggressively toward deployment of defenses to protect the American people against the growing threat of a ballistic missile attack.

   In announcing his intent to withdraw the United States from the treaty, President Bush acted in accordance with changed international circumstances and our national interests--reestablishing the important doctrine of ``peace through strength'' as the basis for U.S. security policy. And he acted within the authority granted by the Constitution to the Chief Executive.

   I commend the President for arriving at a very difficult decision. As we all know, the role of Congress has not ended with our withdrawal from the treaty--the annual budget process can be used to either undermine or support the President's decision, a matter I will address in a future presentation. But for now, an essential first step in moving forward to protect the United States against a serious threat has finally been taken, and the President should be commended for his action.

3A) End Imports of Iraqi Oil
   Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, in deference to the majority, it will be my intent to send an amendment to the desk. I ask that the amendment be laid over until the appropriate time. This is an amendment that involves sanctions on Iraq.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. I do not want to preclude it, but I am not sure as to whether or not it would be necessary to set aside the existing amendment, which is the Iraqi oil import ban. I filed this some time ago.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. On what measure is the Senator proposing to add the amendment?

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is a specific ban on imports from Iraq.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. To which bill is the Senator proposing to add the amendment?

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. It would be an amendment to S. 517.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. That measure is not pending at this time.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent to submit this amendment as if it was in order as a pending amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. My understanding is tomorrow morning is somewhat open because the majority had indicated they were not going to be taking up the boundary issue, and there was some question of taking something else up. So I simply offer this amendment. Obviously, it is going to be up to the leaders if they want to take it, but it would be my intention to submit it. So my staff has the amendment coming shortly. It has already been filed with the clerk. So let me go into the specifics.

   This amendment would basically end our imports of oil from Iraq until certain conditions were met. First would be that the U.N. certifies that Iraq has complied with Security Council Resolution 687 and has dismantled their program to develop and construct weapons of destruction . Further, it would end our imports of oil from Iraq until Iraq ceases to smuggle oil in contravention of Security Council Resolution 986; further, that Iraq no longer pays bounties to the families of suicide bombers wreaking havoc in Israel.

   Now, I recognize Iraq's oil export program is intended to be used for the benefit of Iraq's suffering people, but my amendment also seeks to ensure the President uses every means available to support the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people notwithstanding our ban on oil imports.

   I consider myself somewhat of an internationalist, and I believe firmly in the importance of engagement with other countries, particularly economic engagement. But I am a strong believer, as well, in free trade and in the work that many of my colleagues have done to reform the economic sanctions policy. However, I draw the line on economic engagement when national security is compromised.

   I said it before, and I will say it again, our increasing dependency on unstable overseas sources of oil is compromising our national security. In the last week, this Nation has lost 30 percent of our available imports from both Iraq and Venezuela. Last week, Saddam Hussein urged fellow Arab OPEC members to use oil as a weapon--I repeat that: Oil as a weapon. We saw what happened when aircraft were used as weapons in the World Trade Center disaster.

   Saddam Hussein did that by imposing a 30-day embargo to halt oil exports to the United States until the United States forced Israel to cave into the demands of the Palestinian extremists.

   In 1973, the Arab League used oil as a weapon during a time of similar crisis in the Mideast.

   Some may remember that. We had gas lines around the block. People were blaming government. That was during the Yom Kippur War.

   At that time, we were 37 percent dependent on imported oil. Still, the Arab oil embargo demonstrated how powerful a weapon oil could be, and the United States was brought to its knees at that time in 1973.

   Today, we are 58 percent dependent on imported oil. Clearly, the vulnerability is evident. At that time, the national security implications of energy dependence was obvious to everybody. At that time, there was a decision made to build a TransAlaskan pipeline. It was taken precisely because of our national security implications of overdependency on Middle East sources. That was then and this is now.

   I have charts that show the contribution of Prudhoe Bay to decreasing our imports when Prudhoe Bay came online. It was a dramatic reduction in imports. Prudhoe Bay has contributed about 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in this country. Prospects for ANWR are even greater. I suggest there is more oil in ANWR than in the entire State of Texas.

   As we look at the changing times, we have to recognize certain things stay the same. Nearly 30 years after the Arab oil embargo, we are faced with the same threat we faced in 1973. The difference is that now we are nearly 58 percent dependent on imported oil. The stakes are higher. The national security implications are more evident. I wonder what we have learned. The day before Saddam Hussein called on his Arab neighbors to use oil as a weapon and begin the 30-day moratorium on exports, the United States was importing over a million barrels a day from Iraq. If you filled up your tank on that day, chances are at least a half gallon of your tank came from Iraq. That is dollars to Saddam Hussein. Think about it. This is the same individual who pays bounties to suicide bombers. It was $10,000; now it is $25,000. He shoots at our sons and daughters who fly missions in the no-fly zone in Iraq; he has used chemical weapons on his own people and has boasted that he has the weapons to scorch half of Israel.

   When we innocently fill up a gas tank, we have paid Saddam Hussein nearly a nickel of every dollar spent at the pump that day--paid, in effect, for the suicide bombers; bought the shells targeted at American forces; paid for the chemical and biological weapons being developed in Iraq which are targeted at Israel.

   Have we learned our lesson? I ran across an old Life magazine from March 1991. In a profile of the gulf war, they wrote of Saddam Hussein:

   When he finally fought his way to power in 1979, after an apprenticeship of a few years as a torturer, his first order was the execution of some 20 of the highest-ranking government officials, including one of his best friends. He likes to say ``he who is closest to me is furthest from when he does wrong.'' He grew up in dirt to live in splendor. He is cheerless. And he currently possesses Kuwait.

   This article should be used as a reminder of the costly mistakes for not dealing with him completely. It is almost a play-by-play review of the gulf war, but new names and a new era from 2002 could just as easily be inserted in that article. These lessons must not be lost. He is our enemy. The world must isolate him, cut him off and coax his regime to an early demise.

   We have not learned our lesson, have we? He is still there because we are still buying his oil. Sure, it is masked in an

   oil-for-food program, but is it really working? He is still there. I know oil for food isn't supposed to work that way. Saddam Hussein is supposed to use the money for oil, for food to feed the Iraqi people, to buy medicine, but he cheats on the program, buying all kinds of dual-use and questionable material and smuggles billions of dollars of oil out of Iraq, which directly funds his armies, his weapons , his programs, and his palaces.

   We have had lost lives. A few months ago we had two of our Navy men drown boarding one of his illegal tankers that was going out of Iraq. During the inspection, the ship simply sank.

   No matter how you look at it, our purchase of Iraqi oil is absolutely contrary to the national interests of our country. It is indefensible. It must end.

   My amendment does just that. It would end the new imports of Iraqi oil until Iraq is proven a responsible member of the international community and complies with the relevant Security Council resolutions.

   I begin this statement by affirming my support for economic engagement. I believe deeply in the principles of free trade. I do not believe, however, in economic disarmament. When, as in the case of oil, a commodity is not only important to our economy's health, but it is also important to our military's ability to defend this Nation, self-sufficiency is a critical matter. No country or group of countries should have the ability to ground our aircraft, shut down our tanks, or keep our ships from leaving port. Yet allowing ourselves to become dependent on imports threatens to do just that.

   In the case of Saddam Hussein, we are dependent, as I indicated, as a consequence of what has happened with the curtailment of imports and the strikes in Venezuela. Thirty percent of our normal imports have been interrupted, a portion of that by a sworn and defined enemy, Saddam Hussein.

   I will show a chart I referred to earlier because I think it addresses and thwarts some of the negative impressions as to how significant any development in ANWR might be.

   Looking at history, this particular chart shows, on the blue line, production in Alaska. In 1976 and 1977 it went up dramatically. The red line shows why. We began to build the TransAlaskan pipeline, the TAPPS pipeline, and we see in 1977 at that time imports peaked, and then they dropped dramatically. They dropped in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986 because we opened Prudhoe Bay. When critics say opening up ANWR will not make any difference, history proves them wrong. This is the actual reality of what happened to our imports when we opened Prudhoe Bay. The imports dropped in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986. Why did they start going up? Obviously, the demand in the United States increased.

   They kept increasing. If you look at the blue line, Alaska's production begins to decline. It will decline until we face reality and wake up to the fact that we have the capability to develop ANWR just as we did Prudhoe Bay. But there is the reality that the contribution of opening up a field of the magnitude of ANWR will certainly be comparable to that of Prudhoe Bay. I think that comparison is evident in the range estimated for the reserves of ANWR--somewhere between 5.6 billion and 16 billion barrels.

   The actual production of Prudhoe Bay has been a little over 10 billion barrels. So if you apply roughly the same scenario, you are going to see a significant drop in imports from overseas as we increase production in Alaska. I think that chart really needs to be understood.

   I wish to conclude by a reference to relying on foreign sources of oil. I think we all agree history shows us it is not risk free. We saw what happened in 1973 during the Arab oil embargo. I think it is fair to say we have a bit of an uneasy relationship with our friends in the gulf, and September 11 clearly demonstrated that our enemies--in staunch allies like Saudi Arabia--may outnumber our friends.

   Isn't it interesting the Saudis have indicated they are going to make up the supply that was terminated by Saddam Hussein indicating he is going to cease production for 30 days? I wonder at what price. We already have some form of economic sanction on every single member of OPEC.

   Think about that. Here we are, relying on a cartel which is illegal in this country to provide us with our oil. Then we have some form of economic sanction on every single member of OPEC, a reflection on the uneasy relationship we have with those countries.

   That is risky, relying on countries such as these to provide for our national security. We have long recognized the folly of importing oil from our enemies. There is lots of oil in Iran and Libya, but we have not imported so much as a drop of oil from those countries in 20 years. Does relying on Iraq make more sense than relying on Iran or Libya? I notice many colleagues advocate production in less risky parts of the globe, including in the United States. The trouble is, you have to drill for oil and you have to go where the oil is. The fact is, the ground under which most of the oil is buried is controlled by unstable, unfriendly, or at-risk governments.

   Let me turn for a moment to some of the other areas of the world on which we depend. Take Colombia, for example, the oilfields being developed in this pristine rainforest down there. We get more than 350,000 barrels of oil from Colombia. The 480-mile-long Cano Limo pipeline is at the heart of the Colombian oilfields and the trade. It is very frequently attacked by the FARC rebels. They are anti-capitalist, anti-U.S., anti-Colombian Government rebels. The trouble is, half the country these rebels control has the Cano Limo pipeline running through it, a convenient target to cripple the economy, get America's attention, and rally the troops to their cause.

   The countless attacks have cost some 24 million barrels in lost crude production last year and untold environmental damage to the rainforest ecosystem.

   Last year alone, the rebels bombed the Cano Limo pipeline 170 times, putting it out of commission for 266 days and costing the Colombian Government and the citizens of that country about $500 million in lost revenues.

   The Bush administration wants to spend $98 million to train

   a brigade of 2,000 Colombian soldiers to protect the pipeline and now another rebel faction called the American companies running the pipeline ``military targets.''

   I ask you, is Colombia a stable supply, a stable source of supply?

   How about Venezuela? Workers are on strike there. The Government is in turmoil. Production is suspended. Yesterday, labor leaders and Government officials were set to return to the bargaining table. That has broken down today. Instead we have seen riots, 12 to 20 people are dead. Hundreds are injured. We have seen President Chavez resign and then we have seen him come back.

   One has to question the absence of Chavez and what does it mean to stability? Does it leave a vacuum? Does it leave more uncertainty?

   Between a Venezuelan labor crisis, Colombia's civil war, Iraq's embargo, 30 percent of our oil supply is threatened. What are we doing about it? We are talking about CAFE standards. My colleagues suggest to you if we would only adopt CAFE standards, we would be able to take care of, and relieve our dependence on, imports.

   There are two things about CAFE standards. One is the recognition that we can save on oil. But the world moves on oil. The United States moves on oil. Unfortunately, other alternative sources of energy do not move America. They don't move our trains or our boats, our automobiles or trucks. We wish, perhaps, we had another alternative, but we do not. The harsh reality is we are going to be depending on oil and oil imports. The question is, Is it in the national interest of this country to reduce that dependence? The answer is clearly yes.

   Are my colleagues truly unfazed about the close connection between oil money and national security? Are we willing to turn our heads while the money we spend at the pump fuels the Mideast crisis? Are we willing to finance the schemes of Saddam Hussein? Are we willing to allow our policy choices in Israel to be dictated by our thirst for imported oil? Are we willing to let oil be used as a weapon against us?

   Whatever the outcome of the ANWR debate which we are going to start tomorrow, we should stop relying on Saddam Hussein. It is simply a matter of principle. The United States is a principled nation. We should not allow our national security to be compromised. I have heard time and time again, on the other side, my friends dismissing ANWR as a solution to the national security dilemma of overdependence on foreign oil. But I have not heard of a good, sound alternative solution.

   Our military cannot conduct a campaign of conservation. Our aircraft do not fly on biomass. Our tanks do not run on solar. Wind power has not been used by the Navy in 150 years.

   I sympathize with the desires to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. I believe we will get there through continued research in new technologies. But, in the meantime, the United States and the world moves on oil. As the developing nations develop their economies, they are going to require more oil. I certainly understand the urge to deny the importance of oil in the national security equation, but all my colleagues, I think it is fair to say, will eventually have to look themselves in the mirror after this debate and ask whether we have sacrificed our national security in order to appeal to the fantasies of extreme but well-funded environmentalists.

   Whether or not we do the right thing for this country and open up ANWR to safe, effective exploration, we should not compromise our national security by continuing to rely on our enemies. That is just what we are, evidently, doing at this time.

   Finally, let me again point out something that we have been having a hard time communicating; that is, the reality associated with the ANWR issue. The fact is, this is a significant size--roughly 19 million acres, the size of South Carolina. We have already made specific land designations. Congress made these. We have roughly 9 million acres in a refuge, 8.5 million acres in wilderness, and this is the Coastal Plain, 1.5 million acres in green that potentially is at risk. But the House bill only authorized 2,000 acres, that little red spot there. So that is the footprint that would be authorized in the Senate bill.

   We have the infrastructure in. We have an 800-mile pipeline that was built in the early 1970s from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez.

   Having participated in that discussion, it is rather interesting to reflect that 27 or 28 years later we are still arguing the same environmental premise on whether or not this can be done safely. The argument then was that we were going to build a fence across 800 miles of Alaska; that we were going to separate two parts of the State by building a fence; and the animals were not going to cross it--the polar bears were not going to cross it, and the moose were not going to cross it. That proved to be a fallacious argument.

   The other argument was you were going to put a hot pipeline in permafrost which would melt the permafrost, and the pipeline was going to break. All of those naysayer scenarios were false.

   The same argument is being made today--that somehow we can't open this area safely.

   I will show you a couple of pictures of some of the animal activity up there. I think it warrants consideration. We have already seen the growth in the caribou herd relative to Prudhoe Bay. There were 3,000 to 4,000 animals in 1974-1975. There are about 26,000 today.

3B)Halt Syrian Support for Terrorism
S. 2215. A bill to halt Syrian support for terrorism , end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil and by so doing hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today Senator SANTORUM and I are proud to introduce the Syria Accountability Act, abill that will ensure that Syria is held accountable for its actions in the Middle East and for its support of international terrorism .

As a state-sponsor of terrorism , Syria has supported and provided safe haven to several terrorist groups, such as Hizballah, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. This is in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions that call on U.N. member states to refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts.

Syria is also in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions that call for the sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. More than 20,000 Syrian troops and security personnel occupy much of the sovereign territory of Lebanon and it is time for them to leave.

The legislation we are offering today would expand sanctions on Syria until the President certifies that Syria has met four conditions.
First, that it does not support international terrorist groups;
Second, that it has withdrawn all military, intelligence, and other security personnel from Lebanon;
Third, that it has stopped developing ballistic missiles and has stopped the development and production of biological and chemical weapons; and
Fourth, that it no longer in violation of relevant U.N. Security Council Resolutions.

To give maximum flexibility to the President, we have included a ``menu'' of sanctions for the President to choose from and a provision that would waive sanctions should the President find that it is in the national security interest of the United States.

   Through these hearings, and several others held in both the House and Senate, we have learned that the Federal Government is not unprepared to deal with bioterrorism. However, preparedness levels are not uniform or consistent across the United States, and there are considerable and serious problems. As I said during our hearing in October, while not unprepared, America is clearly under prepared.

   Now, almost 6 months to the day after the first anthrax letter arrived in Hart, I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring two initiatives that are modest in nature but which have profound impact on our fight against bioterrorism.

   The first initiative, S. 1560 the Biological Agent-Environmental Detection Act, will increase our efforts to develop the necessary tools to minimize the impact of bioterrorism by reducing the number of people exposed and alerting authorities and medical personnel to a threat before symptoms occur. Current methods are not adequate to monitor the air, water, and food supply continuously in order to detect rapidly the presence of biological agents.

   The Biological Agent-Environmental Detection Act establishes an interagency task force to coordinate public-private research in environmental monitoring and detection tools of bioterrorist agents. The act authorized appropriations totaling $40 million to the Department of Health and Human Services to encourage cooperative agreements between Federal Government and industry or academic laboratory centers, and pursue new technologies, approaches and programs to identify clandestine laboratory locations. The act also establishes a means of testing, verifying and calibrating new detection and surveillance tools and techniques developed by the private sector. Secretary of Health and Human Services Thompson supported this legislation and the authorization amount during the Subcommittee/Governmental Affairs Committee Hearing in October.

   Senator Rockefeller and I introduced S. 1561 Strengthening bioterrorism preparedness through expanded National Disaster Medical System training programs. This measure provides training for health care workers for bioterrorism or any biological crisis. Strengthening the public health system is very important and is being addressed by several congressional and administrative initiatives. But public health does not translate necessarily to the medical community. Creating a critical line of defense against bioterrorism must involve health care professionals. Training of emergency medical technicians, physicians, and nurses has been hindered by a lack of economic incentives for hospitals and clinics to make available formal training opportunities.

   In fiscal year 2001, the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, was appropriated $800,000 to establish a training program for VA staff for the National Disaster Medical System, which is made up of VA and the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

   One such training program, open to VA and Department of Defense staff as well as their community counterparts, took place earlier this year. The Akaka-Rockefeller bill expands this program by drawing on established partnerships between the 173 VA hospitals and community hospitals and using existing VA resources to implement a telemedicine and training program for local health care providers in bioterrorism preparedness and response.

   In formulating a congressional response to bioterrorism, we must not forget the role our local and community hospitals would play in such a crisis. We must provide our professionals, public health officials, and emergency managers the earliest possible warning of pending outbreaks. I know our scientists and engineers can develop robust, effective, and accurate detection methods. Likewise, I believe we have the best and most dedicated health care staff in the world. They deserve to have the training and information needed to protect and treat Americans in instances of biological terrorism .

4B)Improving Emergency Preparedness for Veterans

   By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:

   S. 2132. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the establishment of medical emergency preparedness centers in the Veterans

[Page: S2724]

• [Begin Insert]

    Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation that would establish four medical emergency preparedness research centers within the Department of Veterans Affairs. These centers would make the most of VA's expertise in basic and clinical research to shape new strategies for coping with, or preventing, the medical crisis that could result from a terrorist attack against the American people.

   The threats posed by biological, chemical, radiological, and incendiary weapons demand that we prepare immediately, using our existing national resources as efficiently as possible. Although many of my colleagues know that VA operates the Nation's largest integrated healthcare system, fewer may know that VA manages the largest health professionals training program in the United States. VA's clinical research programs investigate both cutting-edge technology and best medical practices, and included over 15,000 projects last year.

   Through its reach, its educational programs, and its research capacity, VA stands ready to make a significant contribution to protecting veterans and the public from the medical consequences of a terrorist attack. Only a few weeks ago, VA researchers announced that they have developed the most promising drug yet to protect the public should a terrorist deliberately release smallpox virus. I remain confident that this is only the first of many such scientific breakthroughs by VA scientists.

   VA already plays a key role in supporting Federal disaster preparedness, including maintaining pharmaceutical stockpiles, jointly administering the National Disaster Medical System, serving as primary medical back-up to the Department of Defense, and sharing medical personnel and supplies with communities whose own resources are overwhelmed. The legislation that I propose today would add another dimension to VA's role in emergency preparedness by acknowledging its expertise in developing clinical approaches to public health.

   The centers authorized by this legislation would foster research by VA scientists and clinicians in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of illnesses or injuries that might arise from the use of terrorist weapons. These centers would encourage cooperation between VA researchers and professionals at affiliated schools of medicine and public health to bring new findings and ideas as quickly as possible to the Nation's caregivers. The legislation that I have proposed would promote fruitful collaboration between VA, academic, and other Federal researchers, so that we can integrate research, public health, and domestic security efforts expeditiously.

   The legislation I introduce today also makes two changes in law which affect VA's non-profit research corporations. These two changes are technical in nature and are designed to clarify existing provisions of law: one clarifies that research corporation employees are covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act, FTCA, and the other provision clarifies that VA Medical Centers may enter into contracts or other forms of agreements with nonprofit research corporations to provide services to facilitate VA research and education.

   On the issue of FTCA coverage, a recent Department of Justice opinion determined that physicians employed by the VA-affiliated nonprofit research did not enjoy FTCA coverage, despite the fact that they have VA appointments. Prior to this opinion, the understanding was that the corporations' employees were covered, subject to a certification that their activities were within the scope of government work. Since research corporations were authorized in 1988, not a single suite has been filed against a corporation employee. Nevertheless, it is critical that employees working on VA approved research and education be protected. It is estimated that nationwide, the corporations have 1,500-2,000 research employees.

   These non-profit research corporations have been placed in a difficult spot. Corporations must decide whether to take their chances that the FTCA will cover a suit despite the Department of Justice provision, as the VA General Counsel believes; to reduce their activities by only hiring employees with access to private sector insurance; to use funds normally devoted to supporting research to buy an expensive blanket insurance policy; or to close down entirely. The better choice, is to be explicit in providing FTCA coverage to corporation employees engaged in activities that further VA's research and education missions.

   The second change relates to contracts between VA Medical Centers and research corporations. Many times, VA Medical Centers need help to provide services which are ancillary to research, such as travel coordination, technical services, and conference management.

   I believe that a precedent for such contracts already exists. VA Medical Centers can enter into agreements with closely affiliated universities. For more than 50 years, the VAMCs and universities have contracted with each other for goods and services. In my view, we need to bring this kind of thinking to the non-profit research corporations.

   I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

   SECTION 1. MEDICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CENTERS IN VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--(1) Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 7320 the following new section:``§7320A. Medical emergency preparedness centers

    ``(a) The Secretary shall establish and maintain within the Veterans Health Administration four centers for research and activities on medical emergency preparedness.

    ``(b) The purposes of each center established under subsection (a) shall be as follows:

    ``(1) To carry out research on the detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of injuries, diseases, and illnesses arising from the use of chemical, biological, radiological, or incendiary or other explosive weapons or devices, including the development of methods for the detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of such injuries, diseases, and illnesses.

    ``(2) To provide to health-care professionals in the Veterans Health Administration education, training, and advice on the treatment of the medical consequences of the use of chemical, biological, radiological, or incendiary or other explosive weapons or devices.

    ``(3) Upon the direction of the Secretary, to provide education, training, and advice described in paragraph (2) to health-care professionals outside the Department through the National Disaster Medical System or through interagency agreements entered into by the Secretary for that purpose.

    ``(4) In the event of a national emergency, to provide such laboratory, epidemiological, medical, or other assistance as the Secretary considers appropriate to Federal, State, and local health care agencies and personnel involved in or responding to the national emergency.

    ``(c)(1) Each center established under subsection (a) shall be established at an existing Department medical center, whether at the Department medical center alone or at a Department medical center acting as part of a consortium of Department medical centers for purposes of this section.

    ``(2) The Secretary shall select the sites for the centers from among competitive proposals that are submitted by Department medical centers seeking to be sites for such centers.

    ``(3) The Secretary may not select a Department medical center as the site of a center unless the proposal of the Department medical center under paragraph (2) provides for--

    ``(A) an arrangement with an accredited affiliated medical school and an accredited affiliated school of public health (or a consortium of such schools) under which physicians and other health care personnel of such schools receive education and training through the Department medical center;

    ``(B) an arrangement with an accredited graduate program of epidemiology under which students of the program receive education and training in epidemiology through the Department medical center; and

    ``(C) the capability to attract scientists who have made significant contributions to innovative approaches to the detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of injuries, diseases, and illnesses arising from the use of chemical, biological, radiological, or incendiary or other explosive weapons or devices.

    ``(4) In selecting sites for the centers, the Secretary shall--

[Page: S2725]

    ``(A) utilize a peer review panel (consisting of members with appropriate scientific and clinical expertise) to evaluate proposals submitted under paragraph (2) for scientific and clinical merit; and

    ``(B) to the maximum extent practicable, ensure the geographic dispersal of the sites throughout the United States.

    (d)(1) Each center established under subsection (a) shall be administered jointly by the offices within the Department that are responsible for directing research and for directing medical emergency preparedness.

    ``(2) The Secretary and the heads of the agencies concerned shall take appropriate actions to ensure that the work of each center is carried out--

    ``(A) in close coordination with the Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Homeland Security, and other departments, agencies, and elements of the Federal Government charged with coordination of plans for United States homeland security; and

    ``(B) in accordance with any applicable recommendations of any joint interagency advisory groups or committees designated to coordinate Federal research on weapons of mass destruction.

    ``(e)(1) Each center established under subsection (a) shall be staffed by officers and employees of the Department.

    ``(2) Subject to the approval of the head of the department or agency concerned and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, an officer or employee of another department or agency of the Federal Government may be detailed to a center if the detail will assist the center in carrying out activities under this section. Any detail under this paragraph shall be on a non-reimbursable basis.

    ``(f) In addition to any other activities under this section, a center established under subsection (a) may, upon the request of the agency concerned and with the approval of the Secretary, provide assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies (including criminal and civil investigative agencies) engaged in investigations or inquiries intended to protect the public safety or health or otherwise obviate threats of the use of a chemical, biological, radiological, or incendiary or other explosive weapon or device.

    ``(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each center established under subsection (a) may, with the approval of the Secretary, solicit and accept contributions of funds and other resources, including grants, for purposes of the activities of such center under this section.''.

    (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7320 the following new item:

   ``7320A. Medical emergency preparedness centers.''.

    (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--(1) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Veterans Affairs amounts for the centers established under section 7320A of title 38, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.

    (2) The amount authorized to be appropriated by paragraph (1) is not authorized to be appropriated for the Veterans Health Administration for Medical Care, but is authorized to be appropriated for the Administration separately and solely for purposes of the centers referred to in that paragraph.

    (3) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, $5,000,000 shall be available for such fiscal year for each center referred to in that paragraph.

   SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON RESEARCH CORPORATIONS.

    (a) RESTATEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF AUTHORITY ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.--Section 7362 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);

    (2) by striking the second sentence of subsection (a); and

    (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection (b):

    ``(b)(1) Any funds, other than funds appropriated for the Department, that are received by the Secretary for the conduct of research or education and training may be transferred to and administered by a corporation established under this subchapter for the purposes set forth in subsection (a).

    ``(2) Funds appropriated for the Department are available for the conduct of research or education and training by a corporation, but only pursuant to the terms of a contract or other agreement between the Department and such corporation that is entered into in accordance with applicable law and regulations.''.

    (b) TREATMENT OF CORPORATIONS AS AFFILIATED INSTITUTIONS FOR SHARING OF HEALTH-CARE RESOURCES.--Section 8153(a)(3) of that title is amended--

    (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as subsections (D), (E), and (F), respectively;

    (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph (C):

    ``(C) If the health-care resource required is research or education and training (as that term is defined in section 7362(c) of this title) and is to be acquired from a corporation established under subchapter IV of chapter 73 of this title, the Secretary may make arrangements for acquisition of the resource without regard to any law or regulation (including any Executive order, circular, or other administrative policy) that would otherwise require the use of competitive procedures for acquiring the resource.'';

    (3) in subparagraph (D), as so redesignated, by striking ``(A) or (B)'' and inserting ``(A), (B), or (C)''; and

    (4) in subparagraph (E), as so redesignated, by striking ``(A)'' and inserting ``(A) or (B)''.

   SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF RESEARCH CORPORATION PERSONNEL UNDER FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT AND OTHER TORT CLAIMS LAWS.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--Subchapter IV of chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 7364 the following new section:``§7364A. Coverage of employees under certain Federal tort claims laws

    ``(a) An employee of a corporation established under this subchapter who is described by subsection (b) shall be considered an employee of the government, or a medical care employee of the Veterans Health Administration, for purposes of the following provisions of law:

    ``(1) Section 1346(b) of title 28.

    ``(2) Chapter 171 of title 28.

    ``(3) Section 7316 of this title.

    ``(b) An employee described in this subsection is an employee who--

    ``(1) has an appointment with the Department, whether with or without compensation;

    ``(2) is directly or indirectly involved or engaged in research or education and training that is approved in accordance with procedures established by the Under Secretary for Health for research or education and training carried out with Department funds; and

    ``(3) performs such duties under the supervision of Department personnel.''.

    (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 73 of that title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7364 the following new item:

   ``7364A. Coverage of employees under certain Federal tort claims laws.''.

4C)Preparedness/ Security at Department of Veteran's Affairs
S. 2186. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a new Assistant Secretary to perform operations, preparedness, security and law enforcement functions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

• [Begin Insert]

    Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation requested by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as a courtesy to the Secretary and the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. Except in unusual circumstances, it is my practice to introduce legislation requested by the Administration so that such measures will be available for review and consideration.

   This ``by-request'' bill would allow VA to create an office, directed by an Assistant Secretary, to address operations, preparedness, security, and law enforcement functions. With the increased focus on homeland security has come increased emphasis on the role that VA is expected to play in providing medical care to veterans, active duty military personnel, and civilians during disasters. In order to improve emergency preparedness without sacrificing its primary mission, caring for the Nation's veterans, the Secretary has proposed creating an Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness to help coordinate preparedness strategies, both within VA and with other Federal, State, and local agencies.

   I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and Secretary Principi's transmittal letter that accompanied the draft legislation be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

   SHORT TITLE.--This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Reorganization Act of 2002''.

   SEC. 2. REFERENCES TO TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE.

   Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment is expressed in terms of an amendment to a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of title 38, United States Code.

   SEC. 3. INCREASE THE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED ASSISTANT SECRETARIES; REVISION OF FUNCTIONS.

   Section 308 is amended:

   (a) in subsection (a) by substituting ``seven'' for ``six'' in the first sentence.

   (b) by adding to the end of subsection (b) the following new paragraph (11):

   ``(11) Operations, preparedness, security and law enforcement functions.''

   SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE.

   Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by changing ``Assistant Secretaries, Department of Veterans Affairs (6)'' to ``Assistant Secretaries, Department of Veterans Affairs (7)''.

--

   THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

   Washington, April 12, 2002.
Hon. RICHARD B. CHENEY,
President of the Senate,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: There is transmitted herein a draft bill ``To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the number of certain Officers to perform operations, preparedness, security and law enforcement functions, and for other purposes.'' We request that it be referred to the appropriate committee for prompt consideration and enactment.

   America has entered into an extended war against terrorism in which the front lines include the home front as well as the foreign battlefield. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, served as a reminder that terrorists are willing and able to attack our civilian population, our centers for military command and control, and our economic system. The anthrax attacks that surfaced during October underscored our nation's vulnerability to asymmetric attacks.

   National Defense and Homeland Security Offices project that terrorist attacks on the United States will continue. Terrorists may use any lethal means against domestic targets, including chemical, biological, radiological, or kinetic devices. Moreover, we can assume that terrorists and other entities supporting terrorists may use chemical or

[Page: S2840]

   Congress has assigned to the Department of Veterans Affairs statutory functions for response to terrorist attacks and other emergencies and disasters, that are especially challenging, particularly when compared with those of some other executive branch agencies. The statutory functions include the duty to provide medical services to military personnel referred in time of war by the Department of Defense; responsibilities in four emergency support functions, as tasked under the Federal Response Plan by the Federal Emergency Management Agency under the Stafford Act; and the role of providing care to members of the community during emergencies on a humanitarian basis.

   We can properly perform these responsibilities, however, only in a way that ensures the effective continuity of VA's primary mission of serving veterans.

   The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA or the Department) has emerged from the events of the past few months with a heightened commitment to our statutory roles as a key support agency for disaster response and mitigation, including response to the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons of mass destruction (WMD), as well as its traditional Federal Response Plan roles. Since September 11, VA has joined with other Federal agencies in greatly expanded inter-agency work. The necessary time commitment will expand further as the Homeland Security Council (HSC), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Department of Defense (DoD) programs become fully operational and expand, and VA is asked to provide additional support.

   In response, VA is reorganizing certain of its elements in order to best meet its responsibility to protect veterans, employees, and visitors to its facilities, to assure the continuity of veterans' services, while at the same time providing enhanced emergency preparedness and planning. These responsibilities, which in recent months have become even more imperative, belong to VA as a whole. They thus transcend the Administrations and the staff offices. To help ensure the Department as a whole meets these broad responsibilities, VA needs a separate, and a separately accountable, coordinating and policymaking entity. This reorganization creates a new Office of Operations, Security & Preparedness (OSP) to carry out Operations, Preparedness, Security and Law Enforcement functions. VA's experiences during the last several months of increased emergency management activities demonstrate that OSP requirements are full-time activities for an Assistant Secretary. In order to provide appropriate leadership and accountability, the reorganization places OSP under a new Assistant Secretary. Executive Branch requirements, as well as the strategic and day-to-day requirements of OSP are significant and require a full-time Assistant Secretary to provide the necessary level of executive representation and leadership and to meet time demands.

   To support the establishment of this new organization, this draft bill would amend section 308 of title 38, United States Code, to increase the number of Assistant Secretaries from six to seven and would add Operations, Preparedness, Security and Law Enforcement functions to the functions and duties to be assigned to the Assistant Secretaries.

   The proposed OSP will enable the Department and its three administrations--Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), and National Cemetery Administration (NCA)--to operate more cohesively in this new, uncertain environment, and will help assure continuity of operations in the event of an emergency situation. OSP will:

   (a) Ensure that operational readiness and emergency preparedness activities enhance VA's ability to continue its ongoing services (Continuity of Operations);

   (b) Coordinate and execute emergency preparedness and crisis response activities both VA-wide and with other Federal, State, local and relief agencies;

   (c) Develop and maintain an effective working relationship with the newly established US Office of Homeland Security and reinforce existing relationships with the Department of Defense (DOD), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Justice, and other agencies actively involved in continuity of government, counter-terrorism and homeland defense;

   (d) Ensure enforcement of the law and oversee the protection of employees and veterans using VA facilities while ensuring the physical security of VA's infrastructure;

   (e) Evaluate preparedness programs and develop Department-wide training programs that enhance VA's readiness and exercises.

   The creation of this new organization will shift responsibility for emergency preparedness, continuity of operations, continuity of government, law enforcement, physical security, and personnel security programs from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration (HR&A) to OSP. The Office of Security & Law Enforcement (S&LE) will be transferred from HR&A to OSP. In addition, all or part of the following functions and offices will transfer from VHA's Emergency Management Strategic Healthcare Group (EMSHG) to OSP: DOD contingency support, National Disaster Medical System, and Federal Response Plan.

   The reorganization establishing OSP would create a standing, around-the-clock readiness operations capability to monitor potential and ongoing situations of concern to the Department and its administrators. It would create a more resourced and focused approach to coordinating and executing the Department's missions to respond as a key support agency in national emergencies and to provide contingency support to DOD in time of war.

   This proposed organization would have the capability to meet both ongoing and projected operations center requirements, while providing sufficient personnel to address Departmental planning and policy development needs, and to conduct ongoing training and evaluation at the Departmental level. In addition, OSP would help the Department address growing inter-agency cooperation responsibilities, much of which is required to support the Homeland Security Council.

   The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the submission of this proposed legislation to the Congress.

   Sincerely yours,
ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI.

   By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. AKAKA):

   S. 2187. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish health care during a major disaster or medical emergency, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

• [Begin Insert]

    Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I introduce legislation today to highlight, and acknowledge in law, a mission that already exists in fact: VA's role in offering health care and support to individuals affected by disasters. I am pleased to be joined in offering this legislation by my colleague on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator DANIEL AKAKA.

   VA's first, and most familiar, three missions include caring for our Nation's veterans, training future health care personnel, and fostering scientific and clinical research to improve future medical care. In 1982, Congress assigned to VA a fourth mission: serving as the primary medical back-up system to the Department of Defense during times of war or domestic emergencies. If necessary, VA estimates that it could make about 3200 beds available immediately, and about 5500 beds within 72 hours, to care for injured troops.

   VA has expanded this Fourth Mission to encompass a much greater share of the Federal responsibility for public health during crises beyond caring for active duty military casualties. VA also serves as a supporting agency in the Federal Response Plan for domestic disasters, as a cornerstone of the National Medical Disaster System, and by managing the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile. Through these programs, VA provides personnel, supplies and medications, facilities, and, if necessary, direct patient care to communities whose resources have been overwhelmed by medical crises.

   VA conducts large-scale disaster training exercises with its military partners, cooperates with other agencies to staff emergency medical teams during high-profile public events, and can deploy its group of experts in radiological medicine anywhere in the United States within a day. VA's mental health care professionals offer expertise in post-traumatic stress disorder counseling that is unparalleled anywhere in the world.

   VA has responded to every major domestic disaster of the last two decades, including the Oklahoma City attack, and Hurricanes Andrew and Floyd, by sharing skilled medical staff and supplies with community caregivers. Following catastrophic flooding in Houston last year, the local VA medical center remained the only area hospital with power, and its staff extended care to rescue workers and the public. On September 11, VA physicians cared for at least 68 injured individuals in New York, and VA coordinators identified more than half of the 20,000 beds that would have been available for the care of victims in New York and Virginia through VA's community hospital partnerships. In the weeks following the terrorist attacks, VA continued to provide skilled medical specialists, including mental health professionals, to care for rescue workers and

[Page: S2841]

   The legislation that we introduce today would confer no new responsibilities or missions upon VA, but would recognize VA's already enormous contribution to public safety and emergency preparedness. As Congress continues to prepare for the threat of terrorism, it becomes increasingly important to focus not only the public health community, but those capable of providing medical care during mass casualty events.

   As the largest health care system in the nation, VA medical centers can and will offer invaluable services during a public health care emergency, whether that emergency is terrorism or a natural disaster. When VA health care providers are called upon to care for disaster victims, they serve not only as part of the Federal response to emergencies, but as part of the communities in which they live. This legislation would extend the Congressional mandate calling upon VA to provide care for active duty military personnel during a disaster to recognize VA's contribution to general public safety during crises. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join Senator Akaka and me in supporting this legislation.

   I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Medical Care Act of 2002''.

   SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO FURNISH HEALTH CARE DURING MAJOR DISASTERS AND MEDICAL EMERGENCIES.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--(1) Subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1711 the following new section:``§1711A. Care and services during major disasters and medical emergencies

    ``(a) During and immediately following a disaster or emergency referred to in subsection (b), the Secretary may furnish hospital care and medical services to individuals responding to, involved in, or otherwise affected by such disaster or emergency, as the case may be.

    ``(b) A disaster or emergency referred to in this subsection is any disaster or emergency as follows:

    ``(1) A major disaster or emergency declared by the President under the Robert B. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

    ``(2) A disaster or emergency in which the National Disaster Medical System is activated.

    ``(c) The Secretary may furnish care and services under this section to veterans without regard to their enrollment in the system of annual patient enrollment under section 1705 of this title.

    ``(d) The Secretary may give a higher priority to the furnishing of care and services under this section than to the furnishing of care and services to any other group of persons eligible for care and services in medical facilities of the Department with the exception of--

    ``(1) veterans with service-connected disabilities; and

    ``(2) members of the Armed Forces on active duty who are furnished health-care services under section 8111A of this title.

    ``(e)(1) The cost of any care or services furnished under this section to an officer or employee of a department or agency of the Federal Government other than the Department shall be reimbursed at such rates as may be agreed upon by the Secretary and the head of such department or agency based on the cost of the care or service furnished.

    ``(2) Amounts received by the Department under this subsection shall be credited to the funds allotted to the Department facility that furnished the care or services concerned.

    ``(f) Within 60 days of the commencement of a disaster or emergency referred to in subsection (b) in which the Secretary furnishes care and services under this section (or as soon thereafter as is practicable), the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the Secretary's allocation of facilities and personnel in order to furnish such care and services.

    ``(g) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations governing the exercise of the authority of the Secretary under this section.''.

    (2) The table of sections at the beginning of that chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1711 the following new item:

   ``1711A. Care and services during major disasters and medical emergencies.''.

    (b) EXCEPTION FROM REQUIREMENT FOR CHARGES FOR EMERGENCY CARE.--Section 1711(b) of that title is amended by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Except as provided in section 1711A of this title with respect to a disaster or emergency covered by that section, the Secretary''.

    (c) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.--Subsection (a) of section 8111A of that title is amended to read as follows:

    ``(a)(1) During and immediately following a period of war, or a period of national emergency declared by the President or Congress that involves the use of the Armed Forces in armed conflict, the Secretary may furnish hospital care, nursing home care, and medical services to members of the Armed Forces on active duty.

    ``(2)(A) During and immediately following a disaster or emergency referred to in subparagraph (B), the Secretary may furnish hospital care and medical services to members of the Armed Forces on active duty responding to or involved in such disaster or emergency, as the case may be.

    ``(B) A disaster or emergency referred to in this subparagraph is any disaster or emergency follows:

    ``(i) A major disaster or emergency declared by the President under the Robert B. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

    ``(ii) A disaster or emergency in which the National Disaster Medical System is activated.

    ``(3) The Secretary may give a higher priority to the furnishing of care and services under this section than to the furnishing of care and services to any other group of persons eligible for care and services in medical facilities of the Department with the exception of veterans with service-connected disabilities.

    ``(4) In this section, the terms `hospital care', `nursing home care', and `medical services' have the meanings given such terms by sections 1701(5), 101(28), and 1701(6) of this title, respectively.''.

• [Begin Insert]

    Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the legislation offered by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, to authorize the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, existing emergency preparedness activities.

   Currently, VA participates in the National Disaster Medical System, NDMS, and the Federal Response Plan through VA's Fourth Mission, mandated by Congress in 1982 to establish VA's role as the medical back-up to the military during conflicts. When VA has offered medical care to the general public during every major U.S. disaster since Hurricane Andrew, it has done so without the statutory authority to care for non-veterans and non-active-duty military personnel. The VA Emergency Medical Care Act of 2002 would give this authority.

   Already an active participant in disaster response and preparedness, VA partners with the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to form the National Disaster Medical System, NDMS. The Act would codify and authorize VA's existing efforts to provide health care to the general public following activation of the NDMS.

   VA is an emergency responder through the Federal Response Plan, a signed agreement between 27 Federal agencies and the Red Cross that coordinates Federal assistance when State and local resources are overwhelmed by a major disaster. VA serves as a support agency for four of the Emergency Support Functions outlined in the Federal Response Plan, including Mass Care and Health and Medical Services. VA is also the principle provider of mental health services to disaster survivors.

   I commend the work done by VA employees in responding to national emergencies. Because of their dedication and initiative, this legislation does not create new VA programs nor authorize any additional funds. I urge my colleagues to support the Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Medical Care Act of 2002. This legislation is a first step in acknowledging the work that VA performs now to help all Americans respond to major disasters and medical crises.

   By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. BURNS):

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

[Top]

Center for Nonproliferation Studies 460 Pierce Street, Monterey, CA 93940, USA Telephone: +1 (831) 647-4154; Fax: +1 (831) 647-3519 E-mail: cns@miis.edu; Web: http://cns.miis.edu Copyright © 2002 Monterey Institute of International Studies. All rights reserved.